• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mistranslation in Hebrews

IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
Click to expand...
The book of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint; not the Hebrew scriptures. It was written in Greek so it makes sense the author would use the Greek Septuagint.

If it was written in Hebrew originally; then the people who translated to Greek must have used the Septuagint. However, it's likely the author of Hebrews used the Septuagint in the first place.

Even some Jewish scholars admit that ever now and then; the Septuagint gets it right over the Masoretic text. Which is why scholars do compare the two texts. Scribal errors occur in both texts. But, because the Septuagint was translated such a long time ago it can help to shed light on the Masoretic text. Another reason is the obscurity of the ancient Hebrew in some cases is easier to understand when compared with the Greek. All that being said the Masoretic text is obviously superior over all compared with the Septuagint.

Why not let the actual arguments/logic of the author of Hebrews convince us one way or another; rather than focusing on which Bible he quoted from?
 
Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
Click to expand...

I notice that in the KJV the footnotes indicate: Luke 22:20, and Deut. 1:31 though I have not looked at the significance of either. For Jer. 31:32, the KJV renders the passage the same. Deut. 1:31 indicates that "G_d bore thee as a father would bear his son". Interesting.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
74x12 said:
The book of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint; not the Hebrew scriptures. It was written in Greek so it makes sense the author would use the Greek Septuagint.

If it was written in Hebrew originally; then the people who translated to Greek must have used the Septuagint. However, it's likely the author of Hebrews used the Septuagint in the first place.

Even some Jewish scholars admit that ever now and then; the Septuagint gets it right over the Masoretic text. Which is why scholars do compare the two texts. Scribal errors occur in both texts. But, because the Septuagint was translated such a long time ago it can help to shed light on the Masoretic text. Another reason is the obscurity of the ancient Hebrew in some cases is easier to understand when compared with the Greek. All that being said the Masoretic text is obviously superior over all compared with the Septuagint.

Why not let the actual arguments/logic of the author of Hebrews convince us one way or another; rather than focusing on which Bible he quoted from?
Click to expand...
Exactly, it is from a mere translation, the Septuagint.

Every scholar knows that the original language is superior to any translation.

Your argument that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text has no substance. First of all, there are Hebrew manuscripts that date to around 1000 CE that match up. There are also manuscripts among the Dead sea scrolls that are so close that it is astounding to scholars. It all speaks to the meticulous accuracy of copying that scribes have taken.

If one knows one's Hebrew, there is one letter in "husband" that if you change, it becomes "reject." SOME people say this is the source, but I find that doubtful.

I find the argument from context to be quite strong: If you read the entire context, what comes before and after, God is saying wonderful things to Israel. It would simply be "one of these things is not like the others" if it were "reject." On the other hand, "husband" fits in nicely with the rest of the context.

So we are left with a problem. How can the Christian scriptures be inspired, if such an error happened?
 
Last edited:
Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
Exactly, it is from a mere translation, the Septuagint.

Every scholar knows that the original language is superior to any translation.

Your argument that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text has no substance. First of all, there are Hebrew manuscripts that date to around 1000 CE that match up. There are also manuscripts among the Dead sea scrolls that are so close that it is astounding to scholars. It all speaks to the meticulous accuracy of copying that scribes have taken.

If one knows one's Hebrew, there is one letter in "husband" that if you change, it becomes "reject." These two letters can look similar if written very sloppily. Undoubtedly the Septuagint was translated from a sloppy script.

How do I know it was the Septuagint that had the sloppy script and not the Hebrew manuscripts? Because if you read the entire context, what comes before and after, God is saying wonderful things to Israel. It would simply be "one of these things is not like the others" if it were "reject." One the other hand, "husband" fits in nicely with the rest of the context.

So we are left with a problem. How can the Christian scriptures be inspired, if such an error happened?
Click to expand...

I'm confused. There must be someone that I can not see participating. I will not be debating.
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
Exactly, it is from a mere translation, the Septuagint.

Every scholar knows that the original language is superior to any translation.

Your argument that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text has no substance. First of all, there are Hebrew manuscripts that date to around 1000 CE that match up. There are also manuscripts among the Dead sea scrolls that are so close that it is astounding to scholars. It all speaks to the meticulous accuracy of copying that scribes have taken.

If one knows one's Hebrew, there is one letter in "husband" that if you change, it becomes "reject." SOME people say this is the source, but I find that doubtful.

I find the argument from context to be quite strong: If you read the entire context, what comes before and after, God is saying wonderful things to Israel. It would simply be "one of these things is not like the others" if it were "reject." On the other hand, "husband" fits in nicely with the rest of the context.

So we are left with a problem. How can the Christian scriptures be inspired, if such an error happened?
Click to expand...
I did not say the Septuagint was superior. I said the Masoretic text is superior over all. But, we cannot deny the fact that serious scholars admit that sometimes the Septuagint is correct rather than the Masoretic text. Scribal errors do exist.

As for the Divine inspiration of Hebrews. Since it's a book that uses rhetoric and reasoning to form arguments based off of the scriptures. Then we should be using logic/reason to decide if it makes a good case or not. But really, it's not even written to non-Christians. Let's be honest. It's written to Hebrews who are already Christians. So that's the context. If I was trying to decide if Christianity was true or not I don't think that the book of Hebrews would be the first place to go.
 
U

user4578

Member
What I think is that perhaps Paul was being more or less lenient with his translation of that part of Jeremiah, by mixing it up with a related set of verses in the next chapter(Jeremiah 32:37-41). It would be a collation of these thoughts then into one, a choice, if you will, by Paul; my opinion.
 
Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
Exactly, it is from a mere translation, the Septuagint.

Every scholar knows that the original language is superior to any translation.

Your argument that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text has no substance. First of all, there are Hebrew manuscripts that date to around 1000 CE that match up. There are also manuscripts among the Dead sea scrolls that are so close that it is astounding to scholars. It all speaks to the meticulous accuracy of copying that scribes have taken.

If one knows one's Hebrew, there is one letter in "husband" that if you change, it becomes "reject." SOME people say this is the source, but I find that doubtful.

I find the argument from context to be quite strong: If you read the entire context, what comes before and after, God is saying wonderful things to Israel. It would simply be "one of these things is not like the others" if it were "reject." On the other hand, "husband" fits in nicely with the rest of the context.

So we are left with a problem. How can the Christian scriptures be inspired, if such an error happened?
Click to expand...

Don't mean to drag this off topic. I'll just make this one comment. Perhaps this should be a PM?

I was talking with an Agnostic friend of mine who seems to have recently taken an interest in the Abrahamic beliefs. She can't figure out how Christianity can be valid because Jesus was a Jew. She had some interesting arguments about that, and my own opinion is that the belief rapidly departed from what Jesus talked about. It seems to me that some consideration should be given to the idea that Paul did a lot to take it off on a tangent. Then Original Sin, and the Trinity came about; things that Jesus said nothing about.

Though the idea that Jews try to obey 6?? rules seems toilsome to me. Of course I can't complain when I think of all the conservatism and rule mongering in Islam. I'll watch this to see where it goes. :)
 
Deeje

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
Click to expand...

What is this about? Is it about the words or is it about God's actions because Israel broke their covenant with him? :shrug:

Jeremiah 31:30-31 from the Tanach says....

"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.

31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord."

Jeremiah 31:32 NASB (Strongs) also reads..."not like the covenant H1285 which H834 I made H3772 with their fathers H1 in the day H3117 I took H2388 them by the hand H3027 to bring H3318 them out of the land H776 of Egypt, H4714 My covenant H1285 which H834 they broke, H6565 although I was a husband H1166 to them,” declares H5002 the LORD. H3068

The word translated "husband" is "ba`al" which means "lord" so both are correct.

"bâʻal, baw-al'; a primitive root; also as denominative from H1167 to be master; hence, to marry:—have dominion (over), be husband, marry(-ried, × wife)."

Hebrews 8:9 according to Strongs....(NASB Capitals denoting a quotation from the Hebrew scriptures)

"NOT LIKE G2596 THE COVENANT G1242 WHICH G3739 I MADE G4160 WITH THEIR FATHERS G3962
ON THE DAY G2250 WHEN I TOOK G1949 THEM BY THE HAND G5495
TO LEAD G1806 THEM OUT OF THE LAND G1093 OF EGYPT G125;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE G1696 IN MY COVENANT G1242,
AND I DID NOT CARE G272 FOR THEM, SAYS G3004 THE LORD. G2962"

The word "care" in Greek here is "ameleō" which means....

"to be careless of, to neglect"......Did God have reason to "neglect" or to cease "caring" for his people?

Why did he choose them as his special property in the first place? Because they were somehow superior to other nations? We know that they weren't. They were serial covenant breakers and rebellious complainers....but Yahweh wasn't a covenant breaker. He kept Israel as his own until his part of the agreement was complete....to produce the seed of promise made to faithful Abraham.

Why was there a need for a "new covenant"? Because, as Jeremiah said, Israel could not keep the old one.

Is the new covenant in force? Or is "Israel" still under the old covenant? Is fleshly Israel the one spoken of in Hebrews or Revelation? Therein lies the answer to the question. The apostle Paul mentions "the Israel of God" as both Jewish and Gentile disciples of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 6:16) These are spiritual Israelites, (Romans 2:28-29) who basically lose their nationality once they become Christians. (Acts 10:34-35) They all become part of God's new nation.

So from my perspective, as a Christian, regardless of the specific words, the meaning is the same. The "husband" obtained a scriptural "divorce" from his unfaithful wife. She does not recognize the fact that her husband has left their home.....she still speaks to him as though he was there, but he never answers. Does Israel never wonder why she is as plagued by violence and bloodshed as any other nation?

At Matthew 3:7-10, John the Baptist made it clear that being a 'son of Abraham' did not account for anything unless the Pharisees were 'producing the fruit of repentance'......which they never did.

Jesus said that their house was "abandoned". (Matthew 23:37-39)

This is a very old argument.....:( and sadly, one that has divided us for centuries.
 
wizanda

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I have a pretty good idea what's up.
Click to expand...
If you had an idea what is up, you'd not be asking such silly questions...

Of course Paul contradicts the Tanakh, the whole thing is an morality IQ test made up in an artificial reality to educate people through contradictions, and the idea the Jews are not educating the Gentiles, proves they're unworthy to be God's Levites in the Age to Come.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
Click to expand...
It appears that somebody could have corrupted the text of Jeremiah on purpose, doesn't it? It seems a bit mean, too; doesn't it? The Hebrews letter seems to work with either the original or the corrupted translation, but its hard to tell when the change occurs. I don't know the complete translation history of the LXX or of Hebrews. Christians and the rabbinical sects have a falling out in the first 200CE, and I have heard of some changes of other kinds in Christian texts due to politics. They tend to be tweaks such as changing the name of a female apostle to a male one. Any changes appear to have been made long, long ago.

I gather from the various canonical prophets and Jesus that if a wife cheats her husband can take her back, but if a man stops loving his wife he is required to divorce and not receive her again. I interpolate that this rule is to prevent women being turned into bought and sold slaves like the situation mentioned by prophet Micah, but I don't know how it comes about. It is inspired if it protects but not if it enslaves. I'm sure people debate these things, but here we have Jeremiah's passage corrupted from 'Husband' to 'Turned away'. The first implies that the relationship can be renewed. The second that it cannot. Its a political corruption of the verse if you ask me.

IndigoChild5559 said:
If one knows one's Hebrew, there is one letter in "husband" that if you change, it becomes "reject." SOME people say this is the source, but I find that doubtful.

I find the argument from context to be quite strong: If you read the entire context, what comes before and after, God is saying wonderful things to Israel. It would simply be "one of these things is not like the others" if it were "reject." On the other hand, "husband" fits in nicely with the rest of the context.

So we are left with a problem. How can the Christian scriptures be inspired, if such an error happened?
Click to expand...
How could Adam be inspired if he is imperfect? I think a more relevant question is how can they be inspired if they viciously attack in such a political way, especially when they smear rabbinicals with unjustified slanders. We are left with the question of whether to work with what we have, to retroactively edit or to throw these writings out.
 
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
KJV

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
Click to expand...
The Greek of Hebrews 8:9 doesn't follow the Hebrew of Jeremiah, and it doesn't follow the Greek of the Septuagint either, so it would seem a reasonable hypothesis that Paul either got it from another version of Jeremiah perhaps lost, certainly not canonical, or used his own or someone else's paraphrase.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
74x12 said:
I did not say the Septuagint was superior. I said the Masoretic text is superior over all. But, we cannot deny the fact that serious scholars admit that sometimes the Septuagint is correct rather than the Masoretic text. Scribal errors do exist.

As for the Divine inspiration of Hebrews. Since it's a book that uses rhetoric and reasoning to form arguments based off of the scriptures. Then we should be using logic/reason to decide if it makes a good case or not. But really, it's not even written to non-Christians. Let's be honest. It's written to Hebrews who are already Christians. So that's the context. If I was trying to decide if Christianity was true or not I don't think that the book of Hebrews would be the first place to go.
Click to expand...
It is. Nonsense to say the Septuagint is correct over the masoretic in any instance.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Deeje said:
What is this about? Is it about the words or is it about God's actions because Israel broke their covenant with him? :shrug:

Jeremiah 31:30-31 from the Tanach says....

"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.

31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord."

Jeremiah 31:32 NASB (Strongs) also reads..."not like the covenant H1285 which H834 I made H3772 with their fathers H1 in the day H3117 I took H2388 them by the hand H3027 to bring H3318 them out of the land H776 of Egypt, H4714 My covenant H1285 which H834 they broke, H6565 although I was a husband H1166 to them,” declares H5002 the LORD. H3068

The word translated "husband" is "ba`al" which means "lord" so both are correct.

"bâʻal, baw-al'; a primitive root; also as denominative from H1167 to be master; hence, to marry:—have dominion (over), be husband, marry(-ried, × wife)."

Hebrews 8:9 according to Strongs....(NASB Capitals denoting a quotation from the Hebrew scriptures)

"NOT LIKE G2596 THE COVENANT G1242 WHICH G3739 I MADE G4160 WITH THEIR FATHERS G3962
ON THE DAY G2250 WHEN I TOOK G1949 THEM BY THE HAND G5495
TO LEAD G1806 THEM OUT OF THE LAND G1093 OF EGYPT G125;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE G1696 IN MY COVENANT G1242,
AND I DID NOT CARE G272 FOR THEM, SAYS G3004 THE LORD. G2962"

The word "care" in Greek here is "ameleō" which means....

"to be careless of, to neglect"......Did God have reason to "neglect" or to cease "caring" for his people?

Why did he choose them as his special property in the first place? Because they were somehow superior to other nations? We know that they weren't. They were serial covenant breakers and rebellious complainers....but Yahweh wasn't a covenant breaker. He kept Israel as his own until his part of the agreement was complete....to produce the seed of promise made to faithful Abraham.

Why was there a need for a "new covenant"? Because, as Jeremiah said, Israel could not keep the old one.

Is the new covenant in force? Or is "Israel" still under the old covenant? Is fleshly Israel the one spoken of in Hebrews or Revelation? Therein lies the answer to the question. The apostle Paul mentions "the Israel of God" as both Jewish and Gentile disciples of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 6:16) These are spiritual Israelites, (Romans 2:28-29) who basically lose their nationality once they become Christians. (Acts 10:34-35) They all become part of God's new nation.

So from my perspective, as a Christian, regardless of the specific words, the meaning is the same. The "husband" obtained a scriptural "divorce" from his unfaithful wife. She does not recognize the fact that her husband has left their home.....she still speaks to him as though he was there, but he never answers. Does Israel never wonder why she is as plagued by violence and bloodshed as any other nation?

At Matthew 3:7-10, John the Baptist made it clear that being a 'son of Abraham' did not account for anything unless the Pharisees were 'producing the fruit of repentance'......which they never did.

Jesus said that their house was "abandoned". (Matthew 23:37-39)

This is a very old argument.....:( and sadly, one that has divided us for centuries.
Click to expand...
None of your responses addresses the fact that the book of Hebrews mistranslated the word.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
blü 2 said:
The Greek of Hebrews 8:9 doesn't follow the Hebrew of Jeremiah, and it doesn't follow the Greek of the Septuagint either, so it would seem a reasonable hypothesis that Paul either got it from another version of Jeremiah perhaps lost, certainly not canonical, or used his own or someone else's paraphrase.
Click to expand...
Which would mean he got it from a corrupted version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top